Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

I have a small, under glaze blue, porcelain bowl that is marked with a Chinese reign mark. The dragons, however, have no claws...they don't even have legs or feet but what appear to be flippers or fins. I have included some photos in the hope that someone will recognize this dragon.

Thank you!

A very interesting Dish,possibly late Ming flying Dragon.

More pictures of the base etc would assist.

Very promising.

Regards,

Vic

I believe this dragon usually is called a "Makara", which type inhabits water and was absorbed into Chinese and Japanese beliefs from Hindu sources. However, this is the first instance of one I recall noticing without at least a pair of front legs.

I've included a link below to a previous discussion of the creatures on porcelain, including as depicted on some of my Japanese bowls. Your bowl's decoration is definitely Ming in style, something the Japanese and later Chinese potters and painters have copied quite well and often. It would help in assessing your bowl's date of manufacture if you could show a good photo of the complete bottom, including the reign mark.

Best regards,

Bill H.

URL Title :Dragon Bowls

Hello and thank you for your quick reply. I have included a couple of photos from the bottom of the bowl. Again, thank you. I hope we can clarify this dragon...he is really unusual.

Your bowl's mark reads "Da Ming Xuande Nian Zao" (大明宣徳年造 - "Made during the Xuande Reign of the Great Ming Dynasty"), which ruled during the period 1426-1435. However, the Shanghai publication, "General Compilation of Markings on Chinese Historical Porcelains" (中国历代陶瓷款识大典 - Zhongguo lidai taoci kuanzhi dadian), only shows period Xuande porcelain marks that read "Da Ming Xuande Nian Zhi" (大明宣徳年製 - also read as "Made during the Xuande Reign of the Great Ming Dynasty"). This latter mark was copied during the Ming Jiajing and Wanli reigns, as well as the Qing Kangxi and Yongzhong reigns. Conversely, the Shanghai book only shows your mark of "Da Ming Xuande Nian Zao" as appearing during the reigns of Jiajing (1522-1566) and Wanli (1573-1619), with the one Jiajing example being an incised mark and several Wanli pieces in underglaze blue.

At the risk of further confusing the matter, I have no idea how reliable the Shanghai book may be as a basis for saying that your mark was not used during the Xuande period, but that seems to be a possible conclusion and reason to say that your bowl may be Wanli-period (with a lesser chance of it being Jiajing, since the lone example was an incised mark). Be that as it may, further research would certainly be warranted in my opinion.

Good Luck,

Bill H.

Bill:

Thank you! I was having the same issue with the dish which, as I'm sure you understand, is why I initially submitted the piece as I did. Whether it says "Made" or "Make/Manufactured" is confusing and I felt an understanding of the primary design element(s) might prove more useful in determining when the dish was produced. The rim ornamentation (diaper pattern), can be found on a Hongzi period piece (link):

http://jmapps.ne.jp/mocoor_e/det.html?data_id=51

However, I have found the dragon, without legs, on two different pieces. One a piece claiming to be from the Xuande period (which is hard to believe) and the other being a double gourd vase found here (link):

https://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/tag/dragons/

(This photo, I believe, was originally scavenged from Alain Truong's site so I trust it more.) The author claims the double gourd vase to have a Jianjing period mark.

My dish is a relatively common 20 cm. diameter dragon dish. Nothing fancy like you might think would come from any of these later periods...including Wanli.

So, now we have a Reign mark that may, or may not, be correct...patterns that stretch across a number of periods (about 100 years)...on a not uncommon style of dish for any of the periods.

The aspect of the piece that confirms, for me, that it was actually made during the Ming dynasty is the glaze which is like fine silk; almost like a lubricated surface.

Again, thank you very, very much for your insights!

The double-gourd vase is labeled "Jianjing" but that's a typo. There wasn't a "Jianjing" reign during the Ming, only the Jiajing.

The fact of this double-gourd vase with the "flippered" dragon, probably increases the possibility somewhat that your bowl was made during that reign. However, the gritty foot rim would still weigh a bit more toward the Wanli era, which was not known for the quality of its porcelains, though the imperial pieces were still respectable.

Best regards,

Bill H.

Hello Bill:

I hope you didn't think I was disagreeing with you...simply trying to make a point of how complicated it really is to verify an authentic Ming dynasty porcelain and definitely not for the faint of heart. Regardless of whether one intends to sell or collect Chinese porcelains, even if you have the knowledge, it isn't like fitting a round peg into a round hole. Although dynasty's changed on a date certain work went on and "stuff" didn't immediately begin or end with the beginning and/or end of a dynasty. Throw in the confusion of reign dates, that are a mess at best, (I threw that little alliteration in there for the rappers among us), and about all you're left with IS the understanding of the techniques used...and I sincerely appreciate your insight into those.

I guess what I want to say is, "Thank you!"

JayC

P.S.: Thought I'd toss in a couple more photos because, regardless, it is a cool piece. Again, thanks and I'll let you know if I find out any more about the dish.

My tentative conclusion was Wanli based on the watery cobalt and manner of painting the Clouds.

Added to that the unglazed foot and I would say if genuine then Wanli is a possibility.

Xuande marks were generally used on Kangxi pieces but I had found Xuande marks on a couple of pieces given as Wanli by Sothebys,lately a blue and white Vase 2.6.2016 Lot 809.

This is my Dragon Box which may or may not be Wanli which shares similarities in decoration.
Please excuse the slightly distorted image.

The last image is of I believe an 18th c (hopefully Kangxi) Vase of mine bearing a Xuande mark.

Definitely worth a hands on view by a good auction house with a Chinese expert such as Bonhams Christies or Sothebys.

Good luck

Vic

This Wanli Plate also has a similar cobalt and Cloud decoration,unsold at Sothebys I think.

Hi JayC,

I have this bowl dated to Jailing from a literature reference that I can't find at the moment. At any rate, this particular type of dragon with small wings, no feet, and fin-like appendages is found on mid to later 16th century bowls, but it is not common. I have not encountered a closely similar dragon from any other time period.

The Chinese version of the makara is portrayed as a dragon-like creature with a crocodile-like head, front legs only and branching scrolling tail. It is different from the dragons featured in your very nice bowl.

JayC, Here is the reference for your bowl.

This large dish from the Baur Collection, Geneva is describe by Monique Crick as: Feiyu winged dragon decoration encircled by foaming waves, classic scroll around the rim and stylized scroll beneath, Jingdezhen, 1st half of 16th century.

Xuande style moonflask in my collection, but most likely later. It would have insane value if of the period.

Walter:

Thank you! You brought this dragon much more clearly into perspective. I spent the morning looking up "feiyu" and have learned that the pieces, bearing this style of dragon were made for a short period. According to a 1999 AMICA Library publication report on a porcelain jar held in the Asia Society's "Rockefeller Collection" that also bears the under glaze blue feiyu design:

"The rare motif of a flying-fish dragon (feiyu) appears to have been used only briefly, during the middle of the Ming period. Its appearance may be related to the tightening of Ming regulations regarding what types of dragons and how many claws different categories of officials and other groups at court were permitted to use. Some have also suggested that flying-fish dragon may be a reference to China's position as the world's most important seafaring empire in the fifteenth century. There is a six-character Chenghua reign mark on the foot of the jar."

(The Chenghua reference was for the Asia Society's jar reign mark).

So, now we know! Unfortunately, it doesn't help with the date of production. Since the Asia Society is attributing the Chenghua reign mark as the actual period when their jar was produced, (1465-1487), is the Xuande mark on my little plate correct even with all the anomalies? I hope so...

Again, Walter, thank you!

And then the thread goes dead, which is a shame because it really is an interesting topic. According an article about imperial dragons on the website of Kyote Natinal Museum, there are two version of the "fish dragon", the Feiyu and the Douniyu:

http://www.kyohaku.go.jp/eng/dictio/senshoku/48koutei.html

A vast collection of Ming imperial porcelain with a representative selection of both types was exhibited at Henan Museum in 2015:

http://www.hnmuseum.com/hnmuseum/whatson/2014KilnOfMing/eng/treasures.html

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |